Cobb

Here here! More on this tomorrow...

I think you got some key facts wrong. Here's a revised version of your bar brawl analogy:

A guy walks into a bar. He gets drunk and insults one of the hired hands who, unbeknownst to him and everyone else at the bar, had been drinking on the job and was even drunker than most of the patrons were. The insulted bartender goes ballistic, and takes a swing at another customer, whom he had falsely assumed to be the drunk who had insulted him. He connects, knocking the innocent patron on his butt. A melee ensues, causing several other innocent, paying customers to get hurt also. The original victim stumbles towards the door. On his way out the door, a trial lawyer who just happened to be in the same bar informs the victim that both the thug who assaulted him and his employer are rich, and offers his services to sue. The victim sees no reason to go after the bartender, whom he considers to be innocent in the matter, but takes the lawyer up on his offer to sue his assailant himself.

The victim wins 2.5 million in civil court. The bar owner says to himself "Whew, did I dodge a bullet there. Thank God he didn't sue me instead." He then lays off 0% of his work force. Even the idiot employee who caused the isn't fired, only given two weeks' suspension without pay, with no criminal charges brought. Rather than thank his boss for being so gracious and accept an involuntary vacation, the idiot employee returns with a union steward in tow, demanding that his suspension be rescinded.

Artest has proven to be a much bigger disgrace to basketball than Pete Rose ever was to baseball. he should be banned for life.

So Artest's suspension is unjust because he is a go-getter and David Stern is not (?). Stern started his career as a lawyer how many lawyer's have ascended to NBA Commish? Sounds like a go-getter to me. If the Pacers don't make the playoffs that blame is squarely on Ron Artest. He walked away from what Most People would deem as "disrespectful" (when Big Ben mushed him) but had to "defend" himself because of a tossed on him cup of ice? Hmmm. Perhaps Ron should not give homage to the Clown Prince #91 because he continues to walk in his footsteps.
Ron Artest pummeled a fan that did not throw the infamous cup of ice on him. That alone definitely warrants the suspension he received. How dare Ron Artest, and those that are defending his actions, i.e., "I am Not a Role Model" Charles Barkley, etc. etc. claim anyone in the same situation would have reacted similarly - black athletes of yesteryear (Ashe, Aaron, Louis, Robinson, Russell, etc.) faced abuse for a whole lot less cheddar every time they took to the court or field and remained dignified in the midst of the madness.
Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also (Matt 5:39).

Stern is just trying to save the NBA from its image problems, but I think that horse has already left the barn. In any case, the beer thrower should get banned from the Piston games, but I cant see that Artest's penalty is unfair. I would have banned Sprewell for life for what he did, it was worse by far, but not caught on cameras that I know of so no non-stop ESPN replays and web downloads.

The following is a summary of something I read somewhere else (cant remember where) but to me it really summarizes the problem with the way Artest reacted: Artest fouls Wallace, hard but not unreasonably, and Wallace turns around and nails Artest with a two hand shove to the upper chest, an unreasonable response but one that has Wallace asserting dominance over Artest. Now if Artest is going to be consistent in not standing for disrespect, then he should have gone right back at Wallace because Wallace made Artest look weak by nailing him with no reply. But Artest just walked away, because Wallace would kick his ass IMO. Now later when the beer gets thrown at Artest by some schmoe in the crowd, Artest breaks all rules and jumps into the crowd to show he wont tolerate such disrepect, but then its easy to do so against someone who isnt as big and bad as Ben Wallace. But hey, maybe Artest is allergic to beer . . .

Artest from what i understand does not have a problem going against bigger men. He didn't back down from Wallace because he was scared of him. That's the type of thinking that comes from lesser men. He went after the beer thrower for the reason most of us would (as an aside Robinson died early and in pain, largely because he kept all the stress from dealing with racial abuse inside). He got the punishment he deserved. If it's cut down...he'll get exactly the punishment he deserved STILL.

But there is no way in hell you can convince me that he went after the kid because he was a kid instead of going after Wallace.

I mentioned white privilege elsewhere. I don't know what else to call the belief that someone who got into a fight with a fan is worse than someone actually gambling on his sport. You've got to be kidding me.

When people get all hot and bothered, it's good to remember the law. There is no privileging Artest before the law, but the fact of the matter here is there's no criminal case. With a cursory glance at the criminal code for assault, even a non-lawyer can see Artest's defense.

Even if the DA were to bring charges, it would still be misdemeanor assault & battery. Let me remind the amatuer hanging judges around here of the guidelines.

Misdemeanors are tried in the lower courts, such as municipal, police or justice courts. Typical misdemeanors include: petty theft, disturbing the peace, simple assault and battery, drunk driving without injury to others, drunkenness in public, various traffic violations, public nuisances. The District Attorney may haave discretion to charge some crimes as either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances.

Brad is dead right. Stern is trying to save the NBA from image problems, and nothing saves images like images. This is an outsized gesture to convince people who have no love at all for the sport or its players that all is right with America. It's theatre of the bizarre and it's patently unjust.

Artest, like other real fans of the game, know that a hard foul sometimes results in another. But that's all part of the game. Getting hit with a projectile from the stands is not.

Wow. I thought I was the only conservative that was sticking up for Artest.

I don't think he was necessarily right by running into the stands, but I definitely think that punishment was too excessive and that the heart of the incident lies within the fans, not Artest.

I like to think of myself as a conservative, after a fashion. Artest works for a private entertainment organization. He has a contract, and anybody who signs a contract should be aware of what he is required to do (or not do) to fulfill its terms. He knows the risks, or should. He's not the first rich guy to fuck up.

The barroom brawl analogy doesn't work on a lot of levels. Artest is highly paid not only for his talent, but for his professional judgment. He makes more in one year than any given spectator makes in ten. If he's willing to put that all at risk by brawling with the peons, he's an idiot. And his penalty, relative to his income, may be scaled appropriately relative to what the peon would have to endure if he delivered the thumping.

Cobb, you're wrong about Artest not having committed a crime. There is no "bastard had it coming" defense, even if no innocents had gotten roughed up in the process.

Lester, what you call "white privilege," I call non-idiot privilege. This has nothing to do with race. If you think betting for your team is worse than alleged professional physically attacking a paying customer, I guess we'll have to agree to differ.

While Artest whines about being suspended for one whole season, I'm hard pressed to think of any other profession whose workers can do what he did and have any hope of getting their jobs back, ever. I guess basketball stars are just like you and me, only better.

The district attorney is not filing charges. Where does everybody get off saying this is a five million dollar crime? And even if the DA did file charges, it would be a misdemeanor. If you got fired for a misdemeanor you have a shitty job and a shitty attorney.

Here's how you satisfy me. Give Artest the suspension with pay, like cops in wrongful death cases, until his trial. Ooops. No charges, no investigation, no trial. No judge, no jury, but somehow through the miracle of 'we need a better image for basketball' this man is out 5 million and his team is wasted for the season.

Who did Artest attack? Did you even see the tape?

Better yet, give me a quote from Artest that indicates whining in the slightest.

Like I said. Privilege.

The government isn't fining Artest $5M, the NBA is by withholding his salary. I would agree that a government imposed fine of such a magnitude would be totally out of bounds. I also would surmise that Stern has someone calculating the monetary damage to the NBA's image, which also affects other athletes trying to generate sponsorhips deals, and I wouldnt be surprised if that present value cost is well north of $5M.

Lester, which NBA betting issue are you referring to that resulted in a lesser suspension?

Here is a good article by Skip Bayless defending Artest

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=bayless/041124

Yes Stern is calculating 'damages' to the NBA image arbitrarily and taking it out of Artest's pocket, even though it's perfectly clear that much of the responsibility for this problem lies elsewhere.

A little perspective is needed here. It seems some of Artest's apologists have forgotten two wrongs don't make a right. He's to get a pass because of a supposed conspiracy against wealthy people?

One guy gets suspended and the Pacers are headed for bankruptcy? Negroes, puh-leeze! Cobb's hypothesis is too contrived to be afforded serious merit.

Ron Artest knows playing in the NBA is a privilege. He also knows earning $5 million per year is a privilege. He knew one condition of maintaining both privileges is he's prohibited from going into the stands to confront a ticketholder under any circumstance.

Whether criminal and/or civil charges will be filed against Artest is somewhat irrelevant; he willfully violated his employer's code of conduct. I can understand his reaction (against the wrong guy!) but do not condone such behavior. Stern is correct to the protect the product's integrity by enforcing policy clearly and in full view.

Even so, Artest will be extended a limited form of due process by the league. Conservatives (and Pacer fans) would do themselves justice by acknowledging this principle takes precedent over moral equivalence.

Unlike cops in wrongful death cases, the world saw what Artest did. There is no he said, she said. I don't know about your town, but where I live, cops who are caught on tape attacking people unprovoked are suspended w/o pay. The ones that continue to be paid are the cases where the facts are not immediately clear.
Artest did not get into a fight with a fan. He attacked a fan who seemingly had done nothing to him. We don't know what the man may have said, but sticks and stones... If that victim had been you or your wife, son, daughter, etc..., you'd be singing a different tune.

It's not a privilege, it's a contract for which there are legal obligations. Show me the clause where the contract is nullified for unbecoming behavior. You assume that the condition for 'maintaining privileges' is not going into the stands, but you don't know that. If it were a clear violation, Larry Bird and the players union wouldn't be fighting the decision so hard.

There are plenty of things you don't do under any circumstance, like take a piss on the court at halftime. Nobody is saying Artest isn't wrong, or isn't responsible. I'm saying that:

1. He doesn't bear full, or even half the responsibility for what went wrong last week.

2. Stern's response is disproportionate to the violation. He's justifying actions against Artest in order to save the whole NBA's face.

I agree that both Artest and Stern should be responsible to the contract, but the real injustice here is that Stern is trying to be responsible to the public outrage. He can't. It's impossible. All he can do is make symbolic gestures and 'make a statement'. But this should be the first clue, as any real conservative would understand, that he is now playing to public sentiment. That is where the error begins, as I have said from the beginning.

So instead of dealing with symbolism we should look materially to the law, which is what I did. And seeing that what happened is substantially a misdemeanor assault and battery, I ask what is the appropriate punishment. I grant that the private contract somewhat supercedes the law given that the District Attorney has not filed charges, and is a kind of substitute punishment. But there are plenty of mitigating circumstances here.

I'll continue next to look at the racial angle.

If you are an employer, can you not take disciplinary action (up to and including suspension or discharge) against an employee who brings disgrace to your highly visible enterprise?

Does it make any difference how much the employee earns?

If you got fired for a misdemeanor you have a shitty job and a shitty attorney.

Hogwash. The overwhelming majority of the jobs out there are at-will, meaning that as a general rule, you can get fired for any reason or no reason. Of course there are a few exceptions (e.g., race, religion, sex) but unless you can prove that your termination was based on one of those prohibited grounds, you're S.O.L., and there isn't a f'n thing the world's greatest attorney can do about it. [Except, of course, to take your money and tell you what I just got done telling you for free.]

Even if you do manage to land one of the few jobs out there that allow termination only for cause, rest assured that any physical assault on a paying customer (not to mention Artest's numerous priors) would be all the cause they needed to can your ass, and to basically guarantee you never work in that industry again. Unless, of course, that industry happens to be basketball, and your employer happens to be the NBA. "Privilege," indeed.

You've got a good point there, and hell, Artest might be bourgie enough to buy it. But five million dollars is five million dollars, and the problem here is that everything is relative.

Just as with Kobe Bryant, there's something radically wrong with the millionaire who thinks they should be mixing it up with the public. Why? Because ultimate the public is out to shake you down when you're rich. So in that regard, Artest has jumped into a stew of his own cooking. But the principle being violated here is the absolute value of a punch in the nose as currency.

I say the moral principle of a misdemeanor costing x to the average joe before the law is violated in this case. The moral outrage of the public should not change that value. However, I concede that there are market forces at work and Stern has to deal with them. The symbol of him making the greatest punishments in NBA history is a powerful one (more 'trials of the century'). That is a market correction, not a moral one. So while I concede the contractual and market stuff, I do not concede the moral principle. I am being Randian here vis a vis third parties.

I think Green should be glad that Artest isn't a real gangsta.